The responsible conduct of bioethics research

Accountability in Research

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 102-119

  Master, Zubin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bioethics; Interdisciplinary research; Multi authored manuscripts; Peer review; Research integrity; Responsible conduct of research

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 79952395281     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2011.557302     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Amerasia Journal. (2011). Peer Review Guidelines. Available at http://www.amerasiajournal.org/blog/?page_id=37. Last accessed January 4, 2011.
2. Ashcroft, R. (2003). Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Bioethics, 17:371-374.
3. Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134:596-602.
4. Bennett, D. M. and Taylor, D. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15:263-270.
5. British Medical Journal (BMJ). (2011). Qualitative Research. Available at http://resources.bmj.com/authors/checklists-forms/qualitative-research. Last accessed January 3, 2011.
6. Borry, P., Schotsman, P., and Dierickx, K. (2006). Author, contributor or just a signer? A quantitative analysis of authorship trends in the field of bioethics. Bioethics, 20:213-220.
7. Bower, B. (1991). Peer review under fire: Science's gatekeeping system may need an overhaul. Science News, 139:394-395.
8. Ceci, S. J. and Peters, D. P. (1982). Peer review: A study of reliability. Change, 14:44-48.
9. Chubin, D. E. and Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and the U.S. Science Policy. New York: State University of New York Press.
10. Clark, J. P. (2003). How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In: Peer Review in Health Sciences. Second edition. Godlee, F and Jefferson, T. (eds). London: BMJ Publishing Group.
11. Cole, S., Cole, J. R., and Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214:881-886.
12. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (1999). Guidelines on Good Publication Practice. Available at http://publicationethics.org/static/1999/1999pdf13.pdf. Last accessed October 31, 2010.
13. Creswell, J. W. and Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39:124-130.
14. Center for Scientific Review. (2007). What Happens to Your Grant Application: A Primer for New Applicants. Available at http://cms.csr.nih.gov/nr/rdonlyres/ed6fc446-a716-4f21-b25b-dafa238e5707/16443/whathappenstoyourgrantapplicationflyer101209.pdf. Last accessed January 6, 2011.
15. Center for Scientific Review. (2011). Roster Index for Regular Standing Study Sections and Continuing SEPs. Available at http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp. Last accessed January 2, 2011.
16. Dhaliwal, U., Singh, N., and Bhatia, A. (2006). Awareness of authorship criteria and conflict: Survey in a medical institution in India. Medscape General Medicine, 8:52.
17. Drenth, J. P. H. (1996). Proliferation of authors on research reports in medicine. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2:469-480.
18. Elliott, C. (2004). Six problems with pharma-funded bioethics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 35:125-129.
19. Elliott, C. (2007). The tyranny of expertise. In: Ethics of Bioethics: Mapping the Moral Landscape. Eckenwiler, L. A. and Cohn, F. G. (eds). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
20. Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., and Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association, 283:2701-2711.
21. EMBO Molecular Medicine. (2010). Instructions to reviewers. EMBO Molecular Medicine, 2:A1-A5.
22. Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77:375-392.
23. Erlen, J. A., Siminoff, L. A., Sereika, S. M., and Sutton, L. B. (1997). Multiple authorship: Issues and recommendations. Journal of Professional Nursing, 13:262-270.
24. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., and Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. Political Science and Politics, 31:847-856.
25. Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., and Rennie, D. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:222-224.
26. Freedman, B. (1987). Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for Research: A proposed explication. IRB, 9:7-10.
27. Guetzkow, J. Samont, M., and Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69:190-212.
28. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10:153-158.
29. Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M., and Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions. CanadianMedical Association Journal, 176:41-46.
30. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
31. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2010). Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Available at http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf. Last accessed October, 31 2010.
32. Jones, A. H. (2000). Changing traditions of authorship. In: Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Jones, A. H. and McLellan, F. (eds.) Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
33. Johnson, R. H. and Blair, J. A. (1993). Logical Self-Defense. Third Edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
34. King, J. T. Jr. (2000). How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurosurgical research. Neurosurgery, 47:435-440.
35. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Third edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36. LaFollette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
37. Langfeldt, L. (2006). The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflicts of interests, and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15:31-41.
38. Langfeldt, L. and Brofoss, K. E. (2005). Evaluation of the European Young Investigator Award Scheme. NIFU STEP. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education. Available at http://www.nifustep.no/Norway/Publications/2005/Arbeidsnotat_10-2005.pdf. Last Accessed October 31, 2010.
39. Laudel, G. (2006). Conclave in the tower of Babel: How peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation, 15:57-68.
40. Lee, C. J. and Schunn, C. D. (2010). Philosophy journal practices and opportunities for bias. American Philosophical Association Newsletters, 10:5-10.
41. Mansilla, V. B. and Gardner, H. (2003). Assessing Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier: An Empirical Exploration of "Symptoms of Quality. " Available at http://pzweb.harvard.edu/interdisciplinary/pdf/VBM-Gardner_AssessingSymptoms_2003.pdf. Last Accessed January 11, 2011.
42. Manton, E. J. and English, D. E. (2007). The trend toward multiple authorship in business journals. Journal of Education for Business, 82:164-168.
43. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., and de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435:237-238.
44. McDonald, R. J., Neff, K. L., Rethlefsen, M. L., and Kallmes, D. F. (2010). Effects of author contribution disclosures and numeric limitations on authorship trends. Mayo Clinical Proceedings, 85:920-927.
45. Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee's guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13:833-851.
46. Nature. (2009). No ethics, no grant. Nature, 461:433.
47. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. (2004). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html. Last accessed January 11, 2011.
48. National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2009). Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research. Available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html. Last accessed October 31, 2010.
49. National Institutes of Health (NIH).(2010). Peer Review Process. Available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm. August 30, 2010. Last accessed December 31, 2010.
50. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. (2011). Guide for Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine Reviewers. Available at http://www.peh-med/about/reviewers. Last accessed January 4, 2011.
51. Porter, A. L. and Rossini, F. A. (1985). Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 10:33-38.
52. Regalado, A. (1995). Multiauthor papers on the rise. Science, 268:25.
53. Rennie, D., Yank, V., and Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278:579-585.
54. Resnik, D. B. (1997). A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3:237-243.
55. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
56. Resnik, D. B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., and Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14:305-310.
57. Resnik, D. B. and Master, Z. (2011). Authorship policies of bioethics journals. Journal of Medical Ethics. In Press.
58. Rheumatology. (2011). Guidelines for Reviewers. Available at http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/brheum/for_authors/reviewer_guidelines.html. Last accessed January 1, 2011.
59. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, Th. N., van Vuren, H. G., and van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30:357-361.
60. Russell, M. G. (1983). Peer review in interdisciplinary research: Flexibility and responsiveness. In: Managing Interdisciplinary Research. Epton, S. R., Payne, R. L., and Pearson, A. W. (eds.) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
61. Shamoo, A. E. and Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
62. Spielman, B. J. (2007). Bioethics in Law. Totowa: Humana Press.
63. Sugarman, J. and Sulmasy, D. P. (eds.). (2001). Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
64. Social Science and Medicine. (2010). Guidelines for Qualitative Papers. Available at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/authorinstructions. Last accessed January 1, 2011.
65. van Praag, C. M. and van Praag, B. M. S. (2008). The benefits of being economics professor A (rather than Z). Economica, 75:782-796.
66. Weeks, W. B., Wallace, A. E., and Kimberly, B. C. S. (2004). Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious U.S. medical journals. Social Science and Medicine, 59:1949-1954.
67. Wenneras, C. and Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387:341-343.
68. Wilcox, L. J. (1998). Authorship: The coin of the realm, the source of complaints. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:216-217.
69. Zbar, A. and Frank, E. (2011). Significance of authorship position: An open-ended international assessment. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 341:106-109.
70. Zuckerman, H. and Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9:66-100.